We’ll march to protest and for love of country
On Saturday, millions of Americans will participate in “No Kings” rallies across the nation. U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has falsely alleged that the protests are a “hate America rally” for “the antifa people.”
The truth is that these rallies focus on President Donald Trump’s ever-increasing efforts to seize unprecedented and unconstitutional power.
But that’s not all. Observing the posters and listening to speakers, I’ve been surprised at the many reasons we’ve protested. These include Trump’s unconstitutional and illegal attacks against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), medical research, America’s renewable energy industries, federal workers, and public schools and universities. And he’s placed our health care in the hands of a charlatan and pursued unconstitutional immigration and tariff policies. I could go on and on.
But I’ve never witnessed any support for antifa.
As for Johnson’s other false claim, we march because we love our country.
DON HACKNEY, ATLANTA
Gingrich to blame for lost art of legislation
Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the two political parties conferred and legislated through discussions and compromises.
Then two events occurred: first, in 1990, then-Republican Georgia U.S. Rep. Newt Gingrich, who would eventually become House speaker, distributed “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” which effectively encouraged insulting, belittling and treating the opponent as a traitor. This became the manifesto of the GOP.
Secondly, extreme gerrymandering in most states has led to House seats that are fixed to a party, which has led to a system where no discussions, compromises or care for other thoughts have become the norm.
Candidates have become more extreme (left or right), and the art of legislation has been lost, as has the concept that each vote counts.
BOB DALTON, LILBURN
MTG going against her party is a win
Lately, it seems Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Rome, has revealed a more common-sense side of herself. First, it was believing the women victimized by Jeffrey Epstein. And now it’s her nonsupport of cutting health care funding. I say yay to both of these positions.
But her comments on the Affordable Care Act do bother me. In her explanation, she said the lack of extending subsidies was going to cost her daughters significantly. And she followed that by saying the “Big Ugly Bill” will increase the cost for many of her constituents.
My question is: Why do so many people only care about the impact of events when it hits them squarely across the forehead? Compassion and common sense and empathy should be at the center of every sermon and political position.
MICHAEL BUCHANAN, ALPHARETTA
